Casper.Dik at Sun.COM wrote:
>
> >Darren J Moffat wrote:
> >[snip]
> >> The only way I think I can accept the creation of pfksh93 (and by the
> >> implications of this case this code base will be come that for
> >> /usr/bin/pfksh at some point) is if this case at least makes the current
> >> situa
>Darren J Moffat wrote:
>[snip]
>> The only way I think I can accept the creation of pfksh93 (and by the
>> implications of this case this code base will be come that for
>> /usr/bin/pfksh at some point) is if this case at least makes the current
>> situation no worse than it already is
>
>The sit
James Carlson wrote:
> - when invoked as pfksh93, the shell becomes aware of RBAC and
> checks whether there's a profile for a given command before
> attempting to use the built-in; if there is, it execs the external
> version instead.
This sounds reasonable to me.
J?rg
--
EMai
Darren J Moffat wrote:
[snip]
> The only way I think I can accept the creation of pfksh93 (and by the
> implications of this case this code base will be come that for
> /usr/bin/pfksh at some point) is if this case at least makes the current
> situation no worse than it already is
The situnation i
Roland Mainz writes:
> > (ie chown can't be a builtin when
> > running as pfksh93) and ideally that the code to do the pfexec execution
> > is implement in such away that it *always* executes the external
> > binary rather than the shell builtin if there is a profile entry for
> > that command for
